Commissioners reconsider revising petitions policy

Commissioners reconsider revising petitions policy

By Scott Aust, Journal Staff Writer

RAPID CITY - Two weeks after shelving a proposed
petition-circulation policy revision, the Pennington County Commission decided
Tuesday to take another look at changing the process at the
courthouse.

I'm sure they are free to change their policy when it comes to circulating petitions inside the court house. But I don't think they can legally place any restrictions on petitioners outside of the courthouse, as long as the petitioners do not disrupt people coming and going.

Commissioners said they are most concerned about out-of-state
interests pushing petitions and paying a bounty to circulators for each
signature gathered.

They can be concerned all they want, but they will never have any control over the particular concerns they mentioned above. I would add that the J.A.I.L. amendment "idea" may have originated from out of state, but it was put on the ballot by myself. I have lived in South Dakota since 1968. Secondly, paying for signatures to be collected is perfectly legal and has been done in South Dakota many times over the years.

"I know I'm not the only one who's had people complain about
being approached three or four at a time out here about petitions," Commissioner
Delores Coffing said. "I have absolutely no objections to petitions, provided
they are circulated by local people."

That might be Coffing's
preference, but she will never have any control over whether or not the
circulators are local. South Dakota law states that anyone over the age of
eighteen may collect signatures, even out of staters.

Coffing
was especially concerned about petitions in support of JAIL, or Judicial
Accountability Initiative Law, a proposed state constitutional amendment that
would allow people to sue judges [but that could also lead to litigation against
elected officials such as county commissioners, city council members and school
board members.]

Your statement I enclosed in brackets is a totally falsified notion going around, probably started by the State Bar. Please take the time to read the Amendment atwww.sd-jail4judges.organd you will see the Amendment only
effects the Judiciary.

Coffing said a petition circulator told
her the intent was to hold judges accountable, which she said sounds terrific on
the surface but is "lousy" in reality.

Scott, why is it most reporters
don't seem interested in getting these bureaucrats to explain themselves?
Just what does Coffing mean by "lousy in reality"?

"They tried
this three or four times in California, (It was tried
once in California. The sponsors failed to collect the required
number of signatures due to lack of funding.) and it always
failed so they (Who is "they" that Coffing is referring
to? I am the sole Sponsor of the SD J.A.I.L. Amendment, and as I said, I
have lived here since 1968) figure ‘Let's take it to the little
states, those little hawnyawkers out there, and get it passed there. Then, we
can take it to California again,'" she said. The only "hawnyawker" I know of here in South Dakota is
Coffing!

Later, Coffing learned that the circulators were from
out of state and were making about $2.50 per signature. She said she is
concerned that some people signed the petition without reading and fully
understanding it.

While it is true that I hired a
professional signature collecting company from Nevada, they employed almost
exclusively South Dakotans to do the collecting. And say, why didn't you
ask Coffing if she has read the petition? It is obvious to me she has not,
but chooses to attack it anyway.

"Please, when you are asked
to sign a petition, find out for sure what it is for, and if the petition
carrier is a South Dakota person. Be aware of what you're signing," she
said. Gack!

Assistant state's attorney Jay Alderman
said that petitioning is a First Amendment issue but that the governing body can
impose reasonable regulations on the time, place and manner petitions can be
circulated at the courthouse.

Commissioner Gale Holbrook suggested
circulators should be required to have petitions reviewed by the county's
administrative assistant in advance to determine if it concerns a local
issue.

A "local issue"? Sorry Holbrook,
but proposed South Dakota Constitutional amendments, like the J.A.I.L.
amendment, are by definition state issues.

Alderman cautioned
the commission against trying to regulate the content of petitions. He pointed
out that the JAIL amendment is not really a California issue because it is being
put on the South Dakota ballot. Finally, something truthful.

"In that regard,
it's legitimately here whether you like the content or not," he
said.

Alderman suggested implementing an evenhanded, overall policy
regarding all solicitation, not just petition carriers. He also said he doesn't
know of anything illegal about paying someone to gather signatures.

The
commission voted to have Alderman and administrative assistant Ron Buskerud
prepare recommendations for review next week.

Though a total ban on
solicitation inside the courthouse is not likely, the commission discussed the
possibility of designating a certain area in the courthouse for petition
circulation.

"I would be totally opposed with trying to restrict people
from talking to people as they come up to the courthouse door, to restrict them
from gathering petition signatures for any issue," Commissioner Jim Kjerstad
said. "I know there are a lot of issues that require petitioning, so I don't
think we should make it terribly hard."

Commissioner Ken Davis said
petition circulators are allowed to stand inside the courthouse doors to get
signatures, and as long as they are not getting paid per signature, that's
fine.

"If they're getting paid to get signatures, I don't agree that the
taxpayers should be forced to furnish them an office to do their business in,"
he said. "I have no problem with allowing people to circulate petitions at the
courthouse, but I think that the ways and means should be looked at about how
they do that."